Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Investigate compatiblity/interoperability with legacy containers #4

Open
m1cr0man opened this issue Aug 16, 2023 · 2 comments
Open
Labels
nix Nix development related

Comments

@m1cr0man
Copy link
Owner

The containers option set + modules are in heavy use by people already. RFC108 will supersede them but it is important to have a migration path. Before NixOS/nixpkgs#216025 can be merged safely this needs to be investigated.

@m1cr0man m1cr0man added the nix Nix development related label Aug 16, 2023
@m1cr0man m1cr0man added this to the RFC108 MVP state milestone Aug 16, 2023
@eldritch-cookie
Copy link

what exactly would completing this issue look like? do we need a tool to automatically upgrade from old containers to new, or would just having a manual with the needed steps be enough?

@m1cr0man
Copy link
Owner Author

For this particular issue, I'm curious to test the following interactions:

  • NixOS system with running legacy container, then adding an imperative container to it.
  • NixOS system with running legacy container plus a declarative (rfc108) container

Maybe the answer is "legacy containers don't work on networkd" which would be an acceptable answer to just close the ticket. I suspect it won't be quite that simple, and I would like to (if possible) make legacy and rfc108 containers play nicely together to ease migration for users.

Wrt upgrading, this was discussed previously in the original PR, and documenting the process for performing such an upgrade will be encapsulated by #5

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
nix Nix development related
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants